The Third WCDRR Working Session on“Resilient Cultural Heritage”
March 15, 2015
Meeting Room 1, Exhibition Building,Sendai International Center (Sendai City, Miyagi, Japan)

Contents
Opening Remarks by Chair◆
Koichiro Matsuura, Former Director-General, UNESCO
Overview of the Session by Moderator◆
Stefano De Caro, Director-General, ICCROM
Panel Discussion:◆
Giovanni Boccardi, Chief of Emergency Preparedness and Response, Culture Sector, UNESCO◆
Masanori Aoyagi, Commissioner, Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan◆
Corine Wegener, Cultural Heritage Preservation Officer, Smithsonian Institution, USA◆
Webber Ndoro, Director, African World Heritage Fund (AWHF), South Africa◆
Galina Angarova, Representative of the Indigenous Peoplesʼ International Centre for Policy Researchand Education (TEBTEBBA), Philippines◆
Pierpaolo Campostrini, Managing Director, Consortium for Coordination of Research Activities Concerning the Venice Lagoon System (CORILA), Italy◆
Discussion
Wrap-up and Closing by Chair◆
Koichiro Matsuura, Former Director-General, UNESCO

Resilient Cultural Heritage

The Third WCDRR Working Session on “Resilient Cultural Heritage”[Moderator] Stefano De Caro

Stefano De Caro:
Good afternoon. I have the pleasure to introduce
this conference on disaster risk reduction (DRR)
underlining the position of heritage in this issue. I
am honored to give the floor to the president of thissession, who is Koichiro Matsuura, former Director-General of UNESCO. Thank you so much.
Koichiro Matsuura:Thank you for the introduction. I am very pleased
that you have all been able to come to Japan, andespecially to Sendai. Sendai is one of the major cities in Japan, but a very large disaster occurred four
years ago, in 2011, and it was seriously damaged,
especially by the large tsunami.
The theme of this working session is the “Resilient Cultural Heritage.” We are going to discuss on
how to develop a structure for cultural heritage to
be strong against disasters. Speaking in a broader
sense, what we are trying to do is to identify a conceptual and practical framework for building resilient societies by making cultural heritage resilient.
I am very pleased to welcome all of you here,
especially the moderator and the panelists of thissession, who are in the head seats. Please allow me
to introduce first the two key persons in the heritage field, who represent two important international organizations involved in the heritage conservation. Next to me is Stefano De Caro. He serves as
the Director-General of ICCROM. This is Giovanni
Boccardi of UNESCO. He is my former colleague. I
served as Director-General of UNESCO for 10
years between 1999 and 2009, and I was working inclose cooperation with him at that time.
I would also like to thank the representatives
from the five UN member states; South Africa, Japan, the United States of America, Russian Federation, and Italy. I firmly believe that an active participation of everyone here and the panelists at thehead table will bring an in-depth discussion, andthat we can achieve an important, beneficial, andfruitful conclusion.
Our moderator, Stefano De Caro, will talk you
later about the outcomes of the important interna− 219 −tional expert meeting that was held in Tokyo prior
to this Sendai conference (11-13 March 2015). They
will be the same in context, but I would also like totalk about forming structure for a society and cultural heritage, both of them should be strong
against disasters.
I want to highlight three important elements thatneed to be practiced to make cultural heritage resilient against disasters. The first element is to understand disaster risks and to invest in reducing thoserisks. In this sense, this must include the need toenhance the disaster preparedness by local people.
The second element is how to deal with the disasters when they happen, what action to take in theevent of disaster, and how to face these disasters.
This is so-called crisis management with respect tohuman beings, and we can also apply this concept
to the cultural heritage protection.
The third element is how to repair cultural heritage that is damaged or destroyed by the disaster.
I consider that we should discuss these three elements today, following the discussion that wasmade by experts at the international meeting in Tokyo.
Time is limited and I will omit the details, however, I need to talk about the Second UN World
Conference on Disaster Reduction that was organized in 2005. This conference was held in Kobe City,
Japan, 10 years after it was hit by the Great Hanshin
Awaji Earthquake. I attended the conference as Director-General of UNESCO. One of the important
issues of this 2005 conference was how to deal withtsunami. Just one month before the conference,over 200,000 people had been killed and a hugeamount of properties had been damaged by the2005 Indian Ocean tsunami.
This working session is not the place to deal withthis problem. What I want to tell you is that UNESCO had already deployed a tsunami warning system in the Pacific Ocean by the time of the Second
UN World Conference on Disaster Reduction. On
the other hand, the Indian Ocean did not have thiskind of warning system. As promised, UNESCO
rapidly established it within just one and a half

The Third WCDRR Working Session

years.
Let us go back to the original theme. At the righttime, the moderator will invite your comments andquestions. I hope that we have a fruitful discussion.
Stefano De Caro:
Thank you for the important and inspiring opening
remarks. It gives me great pleasure to moderate
this session on behalf of our partners; UNESCO,
the Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs (ACA) andthe National Institutes for Cultural Heritage(NICH).
The genesis of this working session is placed at
the thematic session that was organized ten years
ago at the Second World Conference on Disaster
Reduction in Kobe City. At that time, the role of cultural heritage within the larger field of DRR was little discussed and even less planned for. Since thattime, I am happy to say much change has beenbrought; a World Heritage strategy on DRR has
been developed, a number of courses have been developed to train professionals in both heritage andDRR fields, and programmes such as the UNISDR
Making Cities Resilient have been developed to integrate heritage into the larger DRR. The framework has been formulated, and more importantly,
programmes and activities are being carried out at
all levels, particularly at the local level, involving international organizations, national and local governments, cities, NGOs, and communities.
Let me give you one example. ICCROM, forwhich I act as a Director-General, carries out several international courses, including the First Aid to
Cultural Heritage in Times of Crisis that is organized in close cooperation with the Smithsonian Institution and the Netherlands National Commission
for UNESCO as well as the International Training
Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural
Heritage that is held in Japan in partnership with
Ritsumeikan University, UNESCO and ICOMOSICORP.
ICCROM has also worked at the more local levelin partnership with the Smithsonian Institution to
train professionals in the aftermath of the Haiti
earthquake. These are only a few examples of theactivities currently being undertaken.
The working session today was preceded by theInternational Expert Meeting on Cultural Heritage
and Disaster Resilient Communities that was heldin Tokyo. The purpose of this international expert
meeting was to come together to take stock ofwhere we are now and where we should be going in

future in much greater depth than possible discussion in a short meeting like this.
The international expert meeting came out witha series of recommendations which paralleled thestructure of the post-2015 DRR framework in orderto ensure that heritage remains relevant and integrated into larger DRR activities. While it is not possible to present all of the recommendations, it might
be useful to highlight just a few of them.
Under Priority 1—Understanding Disaster Risk—the recommendations call for the implementationof measures to better understand how traditionalbuilding technologies can be used to promote DRR
and to understand how cultural beliefs and behaviors can have both positive and negative effects on
attitudes and practices of people in relation to disaster risk.
Under Priority 3—Investing in Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience—the recommendations callfor investment in long-term capacity-building programs for cultural heritage and DRR, taking advantage of appropriate technologies for learning andexchange.
Finally, under priority 4—Enhancing Disaster
Preparedness for Effective Response, and to “Build
Back Better” in Recovery, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction—the recommendations, among otherthings, call for culturally appropriate empowermentof local communities, including women, to take thelead in assessment in the post-disaster recovery, as
well as in the effective use of Post-Disaster Needs
Assessment (PDNA) with a newly-developed integrated component on cultural heritage.
It is important to emphasize that the cultural heritage is not just something that needs to be protected in times of disaster, but something that can playa very important role in assuring community resilience during the difficult period starting in the immediate aftermath of a disaster and during the longprocess of recovery. It is hoped that this working
session today will take us a step further along thepath of working together to ensure heritage-led
community resilience.
While you are looking at the impressive lightsthat my colleague has prepared as a background of
a general impression on this topic, I am honored togive now the floor to the speakers. I would like tointroduce the first speaker, Giovanni Boccardi, theChief of the Emergency Preparedness and the Response Unit within UNESCO Culture Sector.
Through this assignment, he has a unique perspective on international policies and programmes to− 220 −

Resilient Cultural Heritage

protect cultural heritage from disasters and on therole that they can play to strengthen the resilience.
I would like to ask Giovanni Boccardi to help us
framing the question that we are discussing today.
Please tell us why cultural heritage should be relevant to DRR and what the main implications forboth the heritage and DRR sectors are. The floor is
up to you.
Giovanni Boccardi:
Thank you for giving me the floor.
First of all, I thought that it might be useful tobriefly define what we mean by culture and cultural
heritage. Of course, it is the great historic monuments of the past and the works of art which are
kept in museums, but it is also the less iconic landscapes, historic cities, buildings and objects whichhave been constructed and maintained through thedaily interaction between humans and their environment over centuries if not millennia. And then,there is also the intangible part, including the traditional knowledge, skills and practices that underpin
the lives of communities, some of those are associated with the maintenance of the built heritage. Allof these is what we call cultural heritage. Many ofthese things are valued because of the symbolic
value they have acquired to societies, which transcends the original function for which they werecreated.
Since I have only a few minutes, I would like togo straight to the points. First of all, cultural heritage is symbolic of cultures in general, of the beliefs,
values, attitudes, perceptions and behaviors of people, including in relation to disaster risk, so it isvery important to include it in disaster risk planningand implementation.
I think the main point is precisely this, that for
any DRR strategy to be effective, it has to take into
account the cultural context and the cultures that
affect the way people respond and react and evenperceive risks. In some cases, we have seen throughexperience that there has been a disconnect, a gap,
between the culture of the people and the culture of
the organizations that intended to help them in preparing or recovering from disasters. And cultural
heritage, because of its sort of symbolic power, iscritical as an entry point to that.
The second point that I want to emphasize is that
cultural heritage is not just a victim, a liability or acost, when disaster strikes. It is not just an additional line in the sort of state budget of money that has
to be disbursed to repair. It may be, on the contrary,− 221 −an asset or a resource that can make a positive contribution to the resilience of communities at every
stage of the disaster risk management process; preparedness, response and recovery. This is really themain message that we would like to convey throughthis working session to you.
I would like to just give you some examples of
the way in which the cultural heritage can contribute to building resilience.
First of all, cultural heritage is inherently risk
sensitive. There has been a lot of talk about developing in a risk-sensitive way. Cultural heritage incorporates important lessons that derive from thefact that it is the product of a millennia of adaptation. We have seen photos of traditional buildingsthat withstood earthquakes, such as this one in the
picture, much better than modern engineered
structures that were built just a few meters away.
The second point is that cultural heritage is a
catalyst for engaging with local communities to promote ownership and inclusiveness in the recovery
process. It is easier for people to come together
around a symbol of their identity and their sharedmemory and find strength and resilience. It provides psychological support to restore and protect
heritage in a time of stress, and we have seen thisevery day. Moreover, I think we will be hearing
from the rest of the speakers on their concrete experiences.
Most of all, cultural heritage may be a critical asset to support the social and economic recovery
and the reconstruction processes, including, for example through tourism, which is often one of thesectors that sort of starts again rather quickly aftera disaster, and tourism, as we know, is strongly associated with cultural resources.
And finally, I would like to mention armed conflict situations. In these weeks and months at UNESCO, we are dealing with the crisis in Syria and Iraq
and we have seen clearly the link between the lossof heritage and cultural diversity on one hand, andviolation of human rights and the lack of security
for people on the other. When cultural heritage islost through collateral damage or intentionally destroyed, it leads to sectarian violence, poverty, discrimination or ethnic cleansing, and eventually
makes reconciliation and peace much more difficultin the future.
There is now a solid body of research that documents this experience on the ground. There arealso models and tools which have been developed
to help local governments, people or agencies pro-The Third WCDRR Working Session

tect heritage from disaster and draw on heritage tostrengthen resilience in general.
What are the implications of all of this? The heritage sector has worked for too long in isolation. If wewant to see the power of culture harnessed to build
resilience and heritage better protected from disasters, we need to engage much more closely with the
DRR sector, humanitarian security organizations,
local government and the civil society.
UNESCO with UNISDR and other institutions,some of whom are here today, is forming a network
to scale up these initiatives. We have come here toseek new innovative partnerships to translate theseideas into practice, building on the important references to culture and cultural heritage which are already included in the latest draft of the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Thank youvery much.
Stefano De Caro:
I would like now to introduce the second panelist,
Masanori Aoyagi, Commissioner for the Japanese
Agency for Cultural Affairs. Through the experiences of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, please give us one or two concrete examplesof the contributions of the Japanese government to
the idea of building back better, and in particular
the positive effect that cultural heritage can bring toa better recovery of communities. Thank you.
Masanori Aoyagi:
Thank you very much for that kind introduction. In
offering my comments, I would like to start by discussing a situation that arose in the small townshipof Hirono in Fukushima Prefecture. Prior to theearthquake in 2011, the population of Hirono wasapproximately 5,000 people. Indeed, the place wasso small that there wasn’t a specialist employed by
the township to handle cultural property issues.
Anyway, after the disaster, it was planned to build
some temporary housing on the top of a hill in the
town to accommodate those residents displaced byevents. However, before building commenced, a decision was made to carry out an archaeological survey so as to establish whether or not there were any
important cultural properties buried in the vicinity.
Since the town had no resident archaeologist, an
expert on cultural properties who had been dispatched from Takatsuki City in Osaka Prefecture
began a site investigation in cooperation with staff
from Hirono Town Hall.
When this was done, fragments of pottery werediscovered that dated back to the 8th century CE.
This discovery led to the belief that perhaps the location in question represented a significant archaeological site. Furthermore, as the dig progressed,
the remains of an 8th century building were revealed. Moreover, the remains were not those ofjust a simple residential site. Rather, it seemed likely that what had been found was the site of a large
and important government structure and official
post station where horses were once exchanged.
The location was felt to be situated on a major roadthat led further north.
As a result of consultations held with staff fromthe Agency for Cultural Affairs, Hirono Town decided to undertake a full-scale excavation of thesite. The outcome of all this has been that Hirono
now boasts an 8th century archaeological site, a location that was previously unknown to the local
community and also to the larger national and international community of archaeologists and scholars.
The experiences of Hirono and other municipalities impacted by the earthquake and tsunami have
served to highlight a set of organic relationships
existing among local, national and international
communities. These relationships have also been
displayed with respect to the social and material
processes of recovery.
These next two slides will show you represent anattempt to summarize these relationships in agraphic form.
This slide, whose title is “Dynamic Restoration of
Local Culture and Natural Environment,” seeks todisplay the impact of disasters upon regional communities. This slide indicates that, the impacted
communities themselves are reborn courtesy of
three inputs defined as recovery efforts, the mechanisms of independent natural environmental recovery, and that subsequent behavior which is inaccordance with the environment.
And this next slide is also the same kind of diagram. It displays the regional community relationships that existed before the disaster, those thatexisted immediately after the disaster, and also
those that have come into existence after the recovery efforts. Of particular note is the impact that therecovery processes have had upon the new regional communities.
Through the experience that has been gained
from both the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake of1995 and the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011,
we are consciously aware as to the importance ofconducting emergency measures with respect to− 222 −

Resilient Cultural Heritage

cultural properties when and wherever disasters
should occur. Accordingly, irrespective of whether
such items are tangible or intangible, the Agency
for Cultural Affairs is working to quickly establish a
Cultural Properties Headquarters. It is also working to construct a reliable network that will tie it toa variety of local municipalities and other institutions such as non-profit organizations and non-government organizations. To achieve this, we are engaging in the financial support of projects in orderto push forward with the Cultural Heritage Disaster
Risk Mitigation Network that is to be undertakenby the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage
from 2017.
Concurrently, with respect to cities, towns andvillages, since 2007 we have encouraged them toundertake work so that they grasp the broad rangeof cultural properties which they possess within
their municipalities. We are also encouraging themto create master plans with respect to the incorporation of history and culture into urban planning. This
will allow those cultural properties held by the respective municipalities to be comprehensively beneficial. By such master plans including comprehensive cultural property lists, the hope is that, during
times of disaster such information shall allow for
the speedy initiation of surveys into damaged cultural properties. Meanwhile, during post-disasterrecovery, the hope is that such lists of cultural properties shall allow for the rebirth of regional communities considering both history and culture.
As an intangible cultural property, I believe that
language represents a very important example.
Currently, there are perhaps some 5,000 to 6,000
languages in the world. However, it is said that eachyear around 30 to 40 of them become extinct. Facedwith such a situation, UNESCO established information centers in a number of countries about 20
years ago. I would like to bring this issue up, as it
may also be considered as a case that is applicable
to disasters.
Stefano De Caro:
I thank Masanori Aoyagi for helping us understandthe Japanese response and how he is turning theselessons learned into valuable knowledge to help
better protect the heritage in the future.
Our next speaker is Corine Wegener, Cultural
Heritage Preservation Officer for the Smithsonian
Institution. Many people know the Smithsonian Institution as one of the world’s finest and largest museum systems, with 19 museums and galleries, a− 223 −

national zoo and 9 research facilities. But, few know
its work in regard to safeguarding cultural heritagein times of emergencies. Towards this end, it will
shortly be opening a Cultural Crisis Response Center that will aim to provide help in response to cultural emergencies.
Please tell us why the Smithsonian Institution
has moved so strongly in the field of cultural heritage emergency, and describe your planned activities for the near future in this area.
Corine Wegener:
Thank you very much. First I’d like to offer mythanks to the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage and the organizers of this conference for theirkind invitation for us to participate. We had a goodmeeting in Tokyo and a wonderful tour of cultural
heritage resources recovery under way in Kesennuma City yesterday, and I was incredibly inspiredby what I saw there.
In that same spirit of resilience in the face of disaster, I’d like to begin with a quote from Patrick Vilaire, a Haitian sculptor, artist, architect, and unofficial first responder for cultural heritage after the2010 Haitian earthquake. When asked by reporters
why he rushed from site to site immediately after
the earthquake gathering teams to help salvage collections of rare books, archives, and paintings, hereplied with this quote: “The dead are dead. We
know that. But if you don’t have the memory of thepast, the rest of us canʼt continue living.”
Cultural heritage, the legacy that’s left behindfor future generations, is the thread of continuity
that people search for when the rhythm of everyday
life has been shattered. War, genocide, civil unrest,
terrorism, earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes alltake a toll on human life and livelihoods. They also
put cultural heritage in danger, damaging houses ofworship and historic buildings, devastating museum and library collections, despoiling ancient archaeological sites, and disrupting everyday practices of communities, living cultural heritage andexpressive life.
Looting and loss of precious and irreplaceable
works of art, cultural artifacts, and historical archives, and even intentional destruction during
armed conflicts, and the persecution of artists andcultural heritage professionals may follow.
People obviously come first in these situations,but we must do more to help communities savetheir heritage as well. It is a precious resource foreducation and creative inspiration for future genera-

The Third WCDRR Working Session

tions. Culture provides the sites and attractions, thesongs and costumes of performers, the tools andworkshops of artisans; all are necessary for robust
tourism and related activities that stimulate theeconomy. The loss of cultural heritage in disasters
means significant costs to a nation’s or a community’s civic, economic, and spiritual life, or even sometimes its very identity.
Thankfully the cultural heritage community hastaken significant steps in recent years to join thecause of disaster risk reduction. My own organization, the Smithsonian Institution, has followed suit.
While we have always worked to preserve the safety of our own collections, which are held in trust for
the American people, it was only in 2010 that we
joined with our Haitian colleagues and used our resources and staff to help Haiti stabilize and save its
collections. The subsequent Haiti Cultural Recovery Project received money from both US government and private philanthropic sources, and participation from more than a dozen public and private
partners, including USAID and others.
At the end of the 18-month project, more than
30,000 objects of Haitian cultural heritage and history had been stabilized and rehoused, and morethan 150 Haitian colleagues received training in follow-up workshops to increase their resilience andcapacity to take on the inevitable future hazards
that Haiti is vulnerable to.
After that experience, the Smithsonian realizedthat this type of work was a natural extension of thework in partnerships we maintain for cultural heritage and for scientific research in more than 130
countries around the world. It was also clear thatdisaster risk management should play a part in everything that we do at the Smithsonian and even ourown strategic plan, from understanding the American experience to valuing world cultures, to our biggest endeavor, unlocking the secrets of the universe.
It was here that the idea for the Smithsonian Cultural Crisis Recovery Center was born. Planning forthe center is now under way, supported by a generous grant from the Andrew Mellon Foundation.
Over the next three years we have some big plans.
We’ll continue to build our network of public andprivate partnerships with organizations such as ICCROM, ICOMOS, ICOM and the Blue Shield, as
well as a number of academic institutions and disaster-related organizations like FEMA, USAID andmany others.
We are also creating a multidisciplinary researchcommunity with funding from sources like the National Science Foundation, dedicated to a better understanding of disaster risks, such as armed conflict, global climate change, and natural disasters,
and to try to find better ways to mitigate their impact on cultural heritage. Using the information derived from this research, we’ll work with our partners to provide improved capacity-building
programs and training as well as direct assistanceto colleagues around the world whose collections
are at risk or impacted by disasters.
One of the programs already under way, which
has been operating since 2013, is called SHOSI, theSafeguarding the Heritage of Syria and Iraq Project.
This is a partnership among a number of institutions, including the University of Pennsylvania, the
US Institute of Peace, the Syrian NGO The Day After, and we’re working with Syrian colleagues who
are living and working in opposition-controlled
parts of Syria. Our most recent accomplishment
was the emergency stabilization of the Ma’arra Mosaics Museum in Syria.
One of our partners in this effort, Dr. Amr AlAzm, a Syrian archaeologist now teaching at
Shawnee State University in the United States,
probably sums it up best. He says:
Once the current violence ends, the people of
Syria will need to find ways to reconnect withthe symbols that once united them across religious and political lines. The country’s ancient past as represented in this rich cultural
heritage will be a key to this process. Protecting and preserving Syria’s history and heritage, therefore, is about safeguarding its future too.
Stefano De Caro:
It was a very interesting presentation. We will muchlook forward to seeing the progress of the newcenter as it continues to develop. We are very hopeful about this.
The next speaker is Webber Ndoro. He is an archaeologist and a former Project Manager at ICCROM, so he is my colleague. For the past eight
years, he has been the Director of the African World
Heritage Fund (AWHF), a UNESCO Category II
Centre, that is located in South Africa. AWHF is andinter-governmental organization launched in 2006
with the mission to support the effective conservation and protection of natural and cultural heritageof outstanding universal values in Africa.
− 224 −

Resilient Cultural Heritage

My questions to him is how AWHF envisions theissues of DRR at World Heritage Sites in Africa, andwhich partners it intends to work with to make sites
more resilient to both natural and manmade disasters that include conflicts. The floor is up to you.
Webber Ndoro:
Good afternoon. As we all know, Africa is a vulnerable continent. Given the levels of poverty and themany hazards the continent faces, any calamity has
a far devastating impact on this continent and its
people.
Africa, as you know, has experienced many disasters ranging from devastating droughts, whichhave led to perennial famines. Floods too havecaused havoc. But by far the biggest disasters in Africa have been man-made, particularly through internal conflicts and strife.
Also, diseases such as HIV and Ebola have had
their impact on the resilience of nations and communities, as well as on individuals and families.
The impact of all these has had an equally devastating effect on the continent’s cultural and natural
heritage. As indicated earlier on by Mr. Giovanni
Boccardi, this in turn affects the issues of identity,
resilience, and the ability to cope at the national, local, and individual level.
The impact of disaster on heritage also has an
economic downturn, as well as has a militating, andalso curtails the ability to recover.
It was for these reasons that the Africa Union together with UNESCO in 2006 decided to establish
the African World Heritage Fund as a means tostrengthen the capacity of African state parties’ ability to protect and conserve its heritage. I must add
that the AWHF is largely funded by the African governments themselves, and of course there are also
well-wishers who have come to assist.
Ladies and gentlemen, we all know the situationin Mali. Here the political conflict has impacted on
the heritage of Mali, particularly Timbuktu. Let’s
not forget that in Mali there are also World Heritage
Sites which are affected, like Gao; it’s not just Timbuktu.
Conflicts have also affected World Heritage Sites
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for the
past ten years or so. The five World Heritage Sites
in that country have experience relentless attack on
the natural heritage of the world.
Equally devastating have been the new conflictsin Nigeria. In the last week we received informationon the attack on the Suka Cultural landscape in Ni− 225 −geria. Recently, fires have also caused havoc atplaces like the Palace of Abomey in Benin and Kasubi as well in Ugada.
What has AWHF been doing or what do they intend to do? There are two basic things which wehave started to address.
Since 2014 we have, in collaboration with IUCN,ICCROM, and UNESCO, introduced a series of capacity-building courses on risk preparedness to ensure that the state parties and heritage professionals anticipate and plan for disaster risk reduction.
The objective here is to ensure that management
plans of existing and planned World Heritage Sites
have a risk preparedness component. The emphasis is on ensuring that heritage professionals work
together with other civil emergency planners andincorporate heritage in the mix of the planning.
Just recently we have concluded one such course
in Cabo Verde where participants, not only heritage
professionals were taking part, but half of the participants were also from the community. And thishas been repeated in other countries, such as Mauritius, Mozambique, and Senegal.
In these risk preparedness courses we have also
realized that the private sector, particularly mining
companies, also contribute to the vulnerability ofheritage sites, and therefore we have sought topartner them and to ensure that they also take partin these heritage courses.
The private sector is also critical, given that forsome reason, I’m not so sure why, the most successful ones seem to work in conflict areas, andthat’s where the mining takes place and they affect
World Heritage Sites.
The second issue is the fact that we would also
want the risk preparedness plans to be relevant tothe cultural and social political context and to makesure that they also provide ownership of the process to the community. So even if we have all thesepartners, the community must be central to this.
As a result, the AWHF has started, in collaboration with a number of universities in Africa, this university, Cape Town University, the University in
Benin and also universities in Egypt, we have started investigating the role of traditional heritage management systems. The idea here is to try and see
how societies or different communities react to different crises or different situations. We would want
to see how traditional management systems canalso be adopted into disaster risk reduction actions
and understand how societies work.
Apart from the training courses, as well as thisThe Third WCDRR Working Session

research effort, we have also taken part, and we willcontinue taking part, in the situation, in post-recovery situations in Mali, in Uganda, Kasubi Tombs, aswell as in Suka in Nigeria because we feel that we
can learn more and we can help societies develop
better ways of responding to crisis.
For us, the main partner is the local community,
individuals and families who live with the heritage
or live near the heritage places. For a long time they
have been excluded from making decisions and responses to their heritage. This at least will makesure that it increases their resilience to disasters infuture. Thank you.
Stefano De Caro:
Thank you for the explanation of the AWHF activities and the presentation of your interesting work
on DRR.
The next speaker is Galina Angarova, the New
York representative of TEBTEBBA, the Indigenous
Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Researchand Education. This organization is dedicated to theprotection of and respect for the rights of indigenous peoples as embedded in the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I would like to ask her to explain us some of thespecial considerations that are necessary when protecting indigenous cultures in times of disaster.
What type of work is TEBTEBBA carrying out topromote the full protection of indigenous culture,especially in emergency situations? Please, youhave the floor.
Galina Angarova:
Thank you. As an indigenous person myself, I relate
to the topic and would like to thank the organizers
for providing the opportunity for the contribution
from the point of view of indigenous peoples.
So who are indigenous peoples? And why we areimportant in this conversation?
Indigenous peoples represent over 370,000,000
million people in 90 countries in the world. Indigenous peoples’ territories span over 24% of the planet’s land surface and are a home to 80% of the remaining biodiversity. However, in the last 100 years
indigenous peoples have been facing multitudes ofissues, including some of the main ones that arepoverty and marginalization that actually increase
the impacts of disasters on indigenous peoples.
Recent studies show that in low income countries while the economic loss is relatively low theloss of human lives is very high. Given the fact thatthe majority of indigenous peoples are concentrated in low income countries, and the fact that indigenous peoples constitute 15% of the most poor while
being only 5% of the world population, these numbers show disproportionate pressure on indigenous
peoples in terms of impacts of natural and humaninduced disasters.
Climate change is increasingly becoming thenumber one risk for indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are among the first to face the directconsequences of climate change, owing to their dependence upon and close relationship with the environment and its resources.
A couple of years ago I was lucky to have been
invited to a dinner with an Eskimo family in Nome,
Alaska. That evening I not only tried my first walrus, whale and caribou, but I learned a lot about the
lives and history of Eskimo people. The Arctic region is the most hostile and extreme place in theworld, yet they manage to live and thrive in this environment. However, it is becoming increasingly
difficult to survive due to increasing storms andthinning ice. The Eskimo hunters usually rely on
the multiyear ice that is thick enough to walk on inorder to hunt for walrus and other animals. For several years, hunters have been reporting that themultiyear ice has receded and the weather has become unpredictable making Eskimo families risk
their lives. They told me that every year families
lose their husbands and sons to harsh hunting conditions that have worsened over the past decadedue to climate change.
What is traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and why is it relevant?
Traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples ismillennial experiential knowledge based on the intimate relationship with their environment. It can befound in hunting and agricultural practices, land
management, sustainable water use, and agriculture related engineering and architecture, medicinal uses of native plants, et cetera. Indigenous peoples inhabit some of the most fragile ecosystems on
the planet and have developed unique strategies tocope with extreme weather conditions. These
unique strategies include altering land use and settlement patterns, crop diversification, changes in
the hunting and gathering periods, food and seedbanking, creation of networks within and amongcommunities, et cetera.
Some of the best examples of the application ofindigenous knowledge in the modern world are inarchitecture and construction, when some of the− 226 −

Resilient Cultural Heritage

methods employed by indigenous peoples for centuries are applied to build the most energy efficientand disaster- and hazard-proof constructions. Specific to disaster risk reduction, I would have to saythat every community has its own practices andways to interpret natural phenomena. These practices vary depending on their location, their way oflife, and how long they have inhabited that area.
First of all, are traditional early warning systems,
which include observation of animal behavior. Other practices include reading the signs in the sea, therain, the wind, clouds, and vegetation. In some cultures, recurrent dreams or events can be considered valid ways to predict natural occurrences.
Secondly, the most important traditional practices are indigenous coping mechanisms that include
assistance within and among communities especially during post disaster rehabilitation and recovery.
Here, we are talking about little monetary donations within communities, which are crucial in rebuilding communities. National governments
should really pay attention to these. For example,
official development aid when invested in DRR
plans can achieve certain results. However, if funds
are directly invested in communities, a dollar canstretch very far, and communities can be rebuilt fora fraction of the cost.
Finally, I would like to emphasize the role of rituals and religion, which are extremely importantcomponents of indigenous lives. Here we are talking about preventative rituals, cleansing and healing rituals and, finally, thanksgiving rituals. Of
course, these methods will not be supported byWestern science, neither will they be included in official plans, but this is is one of the coping mechanisms that builds resilience, alleviates peoples’ suffering and restore personal strength and optimism.
I would like to quickly mention how traditional
knowledge is supported by the international legal
framework. First of all, it is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 31, which specifically talks about traditional
knowledge; Article 8 (j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and; Article 4 ILO Convention No.
169. I also want to quickly touch upon the HFA 2 inits current version where we have a number of references to indigenous peoples and there is a verystrong emphasis on traditional knowledge. We hopethat the final version of the outcome document retains suggested references and includes effective
approaches to reduce risk to disasters through engaging indigenous leaders and their communities.
− 227 −

Lastly I want to talk about recommendations.
First of all, as some of my colleagues mentioned, isthe importance of training. During the opening ceremony, the Prime Minister of Japan pledged to conduct DRR trainings for 40,000 government employees. I believe many countries around the world will
be providing such trainings, and I think it will bevitally important to include community leaders andpractitioners, especially some leaders from indigenous communities who would not only participate
in the trainings but would be an important source oftraditional knowledge and coordination on the local
levels.
Japan is on the forefront of developing technologies for DRR; again the Prime Minister also mentioned that Japan will be implementing the SNS
sending systems from disaster prone areas. I think
the systems should be replicated and shared withthe rest of the world and especially with the indigenous communities living in such areas. In manycases such partnerships with indigenous communities who can predict disasters through signs of nature well in advance of the occurrence, can save
lives. The indigenous “early warning” mechanisms
should be well incorporated in the national, regional and local early warning systems.
Thirdly, it’s important to invest in aspects of indigenous lives, including culturally appropriate education, access to health services as well as traditional health practices. Having integrity of our lands
and territories, having the right to participate indecision-making and live in healthy and peacefulenvironments, only then we can achieve true resilience, including resilience to disasters.
Finally, we recommend inclusion of indigenous
peoples in appropriate studies; documentation andsharing of indigenous knowledge and practices for
DRR; and inclusion of traditional knowledge andcoping mechanisms in national, regional and local
disaster preparedness and post-disaster plans, witha goal of reducing their vulnerability and increasing
their resilience to these events. Thank you.
Stefano De Caro:
It is very important that all of us are sensitized tothe specific needs of protecting indigenous cultures, and in particular ensuring that the necessary
tools are in the hands of those communities to allow
them to maintain the control of their cultures in difficult situations.
Now I give the floor to our final speaker, Pierpaolo Campostrini, Managing Director of CORILA. CO-

The Third WCDRR Working Session

RILA means the Consortium for Coordination of
Research Activities Concerning the Venice Lagoon
System that is located in Italy. It is a non-profit organization to promote economic and social researchon the natural and cultural environments of Venice
and its lagoon. Venice, which is particularly subject
to the effects of climate change and natural disasters, must protect itself by developing innovativeand new protection methods which must also somehow respect this very important heritage of all humanity.
So, my question to him is what the biggest challenges for Venice in the next 20 years are. Please,
you have the floor.
Pierpaolo Campostrini:Thank you. I am very honored to be here in thisconference to represent my city, Venice, which is arole model for cultural heritage protection in the
UNISDR campaign “Making Cities Resilient.” We
had a conference two years ago in Venice, organized by the Muncipality and the European office of
UNISDR, on “Protecting Cultural Heritage andAdapting to Climate Change,” which concluded
with a Declaration signed by the participating mayors and other authorities. The Venice Declaration,
whose text is available on the UNISDR website,
says simply that a specific consideration to Cultural
Heritage should be included in any disaster risk reduction policy and strategy, and also that all the conservation policies for cultural heritage should include a specific disaster risk consideration.
I would like also to start with good news. The
good news is that the photo, showing Venice flooded by the high tide, will belong definitively to thepast in a few years. In 2017 we will conclude thehuge operation of securing the lagoon of Venicefrom any flooding event. In fact, the realization of
the MOSE system, made of mobile barriers able toclose the sea entrances in the lagoon when needed,
is going to be concluded in 2017.
Venice will be safe from flooding, then. However, our main challenge for the future is to understand how to operate in the best way the system
which regulates the tide in the lagoon. In fact, in
Venice we have to secure not only the culture, butalso the natural environment and the ecosystemservices it is able to provide. In the next years, operating the tide barriers, we will start also a “learning phase” on how to cope with these two needs, tosafeguard the culture, but also the living context
where this culture developed along many centuries,

i.e., the lagoon landscape.
The other message I wish to give is to underline
the following. During this long period of almost 50
years after the big flooding occurred in 1966, while
Venice was preparing the infrastructure for its defence, something occurred to reduce the risk of disaster. The city resilience also increased thanks tothe active participation of citizens. This was related
not only to the flooding risk, with the raising of the
public pavements and the installation of local defences building by building, but also to other risks.
Concerning the valuable cultural patrimony of thecity, some troops of volounteers are trained to safeguard the most delicate and precious cultural assets
during a dangereous event, like a fire or a flooding.
These “normal people” (school teachers, university
students, etc.) are able to intervene together withthe fire brigade, providing information for protecting the tangible cultural assets.
In a city like Venice, to close down a fire asap in
a building is not enough: it’s also important to protect in a particular way the cultural assets thatmight be contained in that building. The civil protection plan of the city of Venice is quite comprehensive and considers properly the safeguard of theimmense cultural patrimony, too.
We have been speaking during this conference
often about the need to have a multi-risk approach,able to consider the different hazards which we facein an urban environment. This applies also for cultural heritage protection. The evident need to protect cultural heritage motivates and gives morestrength to the general disaster risk reduction policy, as it is able to explain without too many words
why it is necessary to have a comprehensive strategy in this field. Threfore the presence of the Cityof Venice in the UNISDR campaign “Making Cities
Resilient” as a “role model” for cultural heritage
protection is helping the general scope of the campaign. I hope, on the other side, that cultural heritage protection will be embedded in all the plan of
the cities supporting this campaign.
We need to continue protecting cultural patrimony. I usually prefer to use the word “patrimony”
instead of “heritage,” because it’s something more
vivid, referring to something which is really “alive”
also today. We need international and national strategies, but we also need specific laws. For instance,
the European Flood Directive was issued in 2007.
It’s the first example ever where cultural heritage
assets were asked to be considered explicetely inthe flood risk management plans.
− 228 −

Resilient Cultural Heritage

Cultural heritage is one of the four targets of thisimportant directive, which intend in general to provide concrete actions to reduce the risks associatedwith floods and to make the community more resilient to flooding hazards. It was an Italian comment,
which came from Venice’s experience, on the provisional text of the directive in 2006, suggesting toinclude cultural heritage protection at the samelevel as the other three objectives of the Directive,
which are saving lives, the environment and economies from the consequences of any possible flooding event.
Let me resume. The local commitment is the key
for both the assessment and the reduction of therisks. It’s possible to map the different tangible cultural assets in a city, and a proper evaluation of various positions to the hazards is necessary. Just as forflooding, it can be done also for other kinds of risks.
We do need innovative methods and technologies inorder to conserve our historical cities. Also city
maintenance means protection and disaster risk reduction. We have the picture of Dubrovnik, of Venice, and of what occurred in Florence after theflooding more than 40 years ago.
Finally, I would like to say something that is very
close to our experience these days. Voluntary destruction of cultural and artistic heritage is currently occurring in some zones of the world. These actsshould be prosecuted as war crimes and as crimes
against humanity. In fact, this is really a crime
against all of us. And this was included a few days
ago in a declaration of the European Parliament,
and I am proud that the European Parliament took
this declaration in order to underline how culture isa human right to protect and valorize.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Stefano De Caro:
Thank you. The last slide is just indicating the disaster in the human soul, I would say, or in humanity.
Your presentation concludes the formal presentations from the session. We have heard from a variety of persons representing institutions, cities, andcommunities who all share the common goal of reducing the vulnerability of our cultural heritage todisasters, while at the same time using heritage as ameans of strengthening community resilience.
Now I will open the floor to questions and comments from the audience. You may ask for more information, clarification on the issues raised. In addition, we would be interested to hear if any of theinstitutions represented in the room have any con− 229 −crete commitments to better protect cultural heritage in times of disaster or using heritage tostrengthen resilience.
Please be short because we have only a very
short time, so if you are short we can let more people speak.
Floor:
I’m chargé d’affaires of the Syrian Arab Republic. I
want to thank everybody about the good information provided to us. I want to speak about this very
important subject and thank you for raising thisconcern here.
With regard to Syria, everybody knows that Syria is a very old city. The age of Syria is almost morethan 7,000 years and Syria holds so many important
civilizations that give Syria a very rich archaeological heritage. What we are facing right now, it is really a disaster for our heritage. It is not only for
Syria; it is for the whole world because it is international world heritage. Most of our important sites
are on the UNESCO list, so this is why the wholeworld should be concerned about what we are facing.
What we are facing, actually it is acknowledged
even in the Security Council Resolution 2199, adopted only in the last two months, in February. So thisresolution acknowledges that we are facing international terrorism. We are facing a big problem with
our neighboring countries. So the trafficking illegally in our cultural properties, this puts us in avery difficult situation.
Another issue, also allowing such antiquity
gangs coming to Syria and doing such destruction
to our cultural heritage, this is another issue. And
this is the Security Council resolution actually withregard to this issue. So the main idea is not only
waiting for the local government to preserve its cultural heritage, but we need the international community to be also committed to their responsibilities in line with the Security Council resolution orother resolutions.
For example, this resolution speaks in its paragraph 17, it asks the member states in order to prevent the trading in cultural properties with regard
to the Syria and Iraq situation, and also including byprohibiting cross-border trade in such items. And
also called on the international communities and
UNESCO and other international organizations,like Interpol, dealing with this issue in order to assist in helping and implementing such importantresolutions.

The Third WCDRR Working Session

So the idea is not only on local people and it is
not internal issues; we kept preserving such important heritage for more than 7,000 years as a people
and as a government. According to our internal law,
it is prohibited to change all the sites or anything ofthese archaeological sites, even if it is owned by private persons. This is why what we are facing fromthe international community, that they are not committed to their responsibilities.
We ask also to raise this concern to work together against this international terrorism, and also
committing to our commitment, controlling the border, not allowing illegal trafficking in cultural heritage. Thank you.
Stefano De Caro:
Thank you so much. Many of the organizations represented on this floor and in previous meetings arecommitted to doing more than something for theserious Syrian situation. UNESCO is very committed to these issues. But we have to cover more issues so I ask the lady who advanced.
Floor:
I’m with Earthsavers, UNESCO Artists for Peace,
Cecile Guidote-Alvarez. We deeply appreciate yourstrong presentation of the panel that really focuseson the importance of heritage defense against climate change and other violent assaults on what wecall truly an assault on the memory and identity ofnations. And so we are really grateful for the European resolution and wonder whether this can be notjust applicable to the EU but adopted as a UN action
or however that would make it really effective for allother countries.
For instance, we are grateful also because of theleadership of UNESCO, and Mr. Matsuura and evennow have really pushed on the value of heritage andhas popularized really the concept of protecting. It’s
actually like if we could make it clear to the people
that we are actually inflicting amnesia and, maybe
worse, Alzheimer’s disease, on a nation if we allow
the destruction of all this heritage and patrimonythat is really precious to a nation’s identity.
So the resilience, we would like to also focus on
something besides the training, the need for effective cultural communications, for people to understand what are the data about the heritage, what is
supposed to be known about the heritage in every
country.
For instance, our own heritage site has been assaulted by the boats of three countries. You had theUSA, you had China, and of all people, an environmentally friendly boat like Greenpeace. What are
we going to do? In Lima there was also perhaps thelack of knowledge or orientation that Greenpeacealso in a sense assaulted a sacred place. Is it because they don’t know what are these heritage
sites? And we have to provide a stronger orientation
and basis of information that they must really beprotected.
There is also the issue of resilience. For instancein the Philippines, when in Bohol a dual affliction
happened, the earthquake and the super typhoon in
the Visayas, most of those that were ruined, besides of course homes, were cultural treasures likethe churches, and it was necessary, we being a majority Christian country, that it was able to rebuild
through a community spirit to bring back the placeof worship.
There is a problem, like for instance we are trying to connect, which is great. There are all theseissues. There is just one question about the cooperation that has been undertaken. We are gratefulto the Spanish government, the Italian government,
for connectivity for the protection. There is one thatis in deep danger, Cartagena, which fears to be another Venice. Is it possible for instance that the expertise of Venice can be shared for the defense of
Cartagena?
And another just issue, with the importance thatyou have laid out, can insurance cover? Can governments and private partnership work out so that
there is some sort of insurance on heritage sites?
Can the concept of insurance be expanded to cover
the defense or protection or reconstruction assistance for these heritage sites?
Stefano De Caro:
Maybe Mr. Campostrini can give a short answer
and probably also Giovanni could add somethingfrom the side of UNESCO, but very short because
we have to move to other questions.
Pierpaolo Campostrini:
The answer is, yes, of course. We can share our experience not only throug our government or maybe
the European instutition, but also the experiencecan be shared also city to city. We have the opportunity to have all the relations, it’s many-to-many relationships that can be held. Both in terms of technology, which is important, but also in terms oforganization. I mean, also the kind of governancewhich is behind. It’s important in this case, where− 230 −

Resilient Cultural Heritage

climate change is causing huge problems, that all
the levels of the administration react in a coordinated way. So, we can also transfer some experiences how to deal the dialogue betwenn local andnational administration. The dialague is absolutely
important; otherwise, any action in the territory
simply does not work.
Giovanni Boccardi:
On the most important point, one of raising awareness, promoting mutual understanding, I think
UNESCO is fully committed to this through thevarious conventions that it implements, notably theone on cultural diversity.
On the specific questions of is it possible to insure cultural heritage, it has been done but there is
still work to be done because insurance companies
usually accept to insure something if they know exactly how much it will cost to replace it. And thecost of replacing heritage is ambiguous and insurers cannot understand. In some cases they believe
it’s irreplaceable completely, which may be true insome instances, but not always. So we need to workwith them closely to find common ground.
Stefano De Caro:
We have ten minutes more and I would leave someminutes for a conclusion by Mr. Matsuura, so pleasebe brief.
Floor:
When the panelists were presenting, I got an ideathat I would like to share.
Generally people feel obliged to move from theirarea because of disaster, and once they move fromthose areas, sometimes they lose their culture, theway they live, the way they practice, but I noticethat all the communication will focus on material or
infrastructure heritage. So I would like to raise that
aspect of things, reminding people that sometimes
people, because of disasters or conflicts, lose a very
important part of their life in their culture. Thanks.
Stefano De Caro:
The next one. There was somebody. Yes.
Floor:
My name is Peter Abraham Fukuda Loewi. I am an
architect with the Major Group for Children andYouth. Thank you for seeing all of these. Thank you
for seeing that the preservation of traditional knowledge and the conflict are so intimately connected to− 231 −

these. At the end, I’m sorry, Mr. Campostrini said atthe end that culture is a human right, but we will notinherit, the youth will not inherit this right unless
you preserve it. One thing that was not brought up
was the role of children and youth in this, but one of
the slides said that our past is our future, but yourpast is our future. And for those reasons, it muststay. Thank you.
Floor:
My name is Denis Ricard. I am secretary general of
the organization of World Heritage Cities and theorganization of World Heritage Cities reaches 260
cities around the world, and I just want to say how
important such a conference is.
If there is one example of resilience, World Heritage Cities certainly are. Through years they went
through wars, they went through negative humanimpacts, and now climate change, and through all of
this, they were there, they are there, and they willbe there, and this conference, I just want to mention
that, as a conclusion, has been very inspiring, inspiring globally with such a theme, and especiallythis workshop has been very inspiring for people
like us. As a matter of fact, our next world congress,
which will be in Arequipa, Peru, in November, hasexactly the same title. And this world congress, oneof the organizations of World Heritage Cities, unites
mayors with political power and specialists at the
local level in terms of heritage. So in a very concrete way we try to implement what you have inspired us. Thank you.
Stefano De Caro:
So two more statements or questions and after I will
leave the floor to Mr. Matsuura.
Floor:
Thank you. My name is Terrence. I’m coming fromSingapore and I would like to speak on behalf of ourexperiences in Southeast Asia where we go aroundusing culture to help the children and the youth.
Southeast Asia is a very transient place, and because of this I feel that we need culture that is a lot
more mobile, and I would like to ask the panel about
how is it keeping culture mobile? And I feel this isimportant for three reasons.
Number one, people are moving. They are shifting away to different places and they will take theirculture with them and they try to assimilate it orpreserve. There is a need to help them have a dialogue with the new environment that they have.

The Third WCDRR Working Session

Secondly, the patterns are changing as well, as
we can see how the typhoon moves from north tosouth, the Philippines for example, and there areideas from the northern Philippines that need to bebrought down to the southern Philippines. Therefore it’s very important as well.
And third of all, of course after destruction, how
can we rebuild our cultures again? So I feel that
there needs to be the ability to assimilate or adapt
or adopt cultures. I think it’s a very important thing.
We are also becoming a much more globalized andmobile society anyway; therefore, we need to consider how we use, how we make traditions and heritage cool and fun, put it into films, music, games,
dance, songs. We need to make it something whereby the young people and the youth feel eager totake on ideas from the past. Thank you.
Stefano De Caro:
The last one, yes.
Floor:
Thank you. My name is Peter Burgess. I’m a professor at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo. I want tostart with a comment of Mr. Boccardi in order tomake a strategic suggestion.
I hold in the highest esteem the point of view ofthe panel and many of the audience here that ourcultural heritage is precious and should be protected at significant cost. But then at the same time
when I go in the other rooms at this conference I
see that we’re competing, we who believe that weare competing with different discourses, hard science, quantitative science, finance, economics, forthe same reasons. And in comparison, we appear
almost as passive, almost as victims asking for help
to preserve what we hold dear.
What Mr. Boccardi’s comment inspires is a strategy which starts with the added value of cultural
heritage for resilience. And I see also on the panelthat Mr. Boccardi is quite in the minority in that regard. There’s a very strong function that culture
and cultural heritage can provide in giving resilience and bringing continuity, in binding people together, in stabilizing values that are shared, culturalvalues, and being a catalyst, as he said himself. So I
welcome this very much.
And from a strategic point of view I would really
recommend that we focus some of our efforts on
showing how culture can contribute to resilienceand not only benefit from it.

Stefano De Caro:
Thank you so much. I will close now. Unfortunately
we have not so many minutes remaining, so I will
ask Mr. Matsuura to summarize and give us his impressions as the most experienced man in this field.
Koichiro Matsuura:
Well, Dr. De Caro, you are giving me a very, very
difficult task to summarize a very rich discussion
during the remaining two or three minutes, but I’dlike to mention if possible five points very quickly.
I think everybody agrees that cultural heritage–
how important it is not only for the local community, for the nation concerned, for the entire world–isvulnerable to disaster. Therefore, we have to makevery serious efforts, make much more serious efforts to establish a more resilient society which will
pay more attention to protecting and safeguarding
cultural heritage in case of disaster. That’s the firstpoint.
The second point is, in that context I think, everybody agrees with the point raised by Giovanni that
cultural heritage plays a very important role in creating a more resilient society. It is a positive role ofcultural heritage that must be strengthened as well.
That’s the second point.
The third point is, when we talk about disasters,
we tend to focus on natural disasters, but many ofyou have mentioned human-created disasters, andlooking back, in my judgment, in particular in thelast 25 years, more damage, more destruction has
been created by human-created disasters–wars, regional wars, civil wars, unilateral action, based onparticular beliefs which are contrary to the commonly held value. That is what we are witnessing insome parts of the world, in particular in the Middle
East right now. Very unfortunate.
Therefore, the third point is we have to pay more
attention in establishing disaster risk reduction
policy, to how to protect cultural heritage in case ofdisaster, in case of natural disasters, but also in thecase of human-created disasters. It is crucial thatthese elements are included in our disaster risk reduction policy.
The next point is, in that context the role of thelocal community is crucial but we have to emphasize the local governments, central governments,and for that matter the entire human society or theentire world has a very, very important responsibility to promote the consciousness of the importanceof protecting cultural heritage, but also promoting
cooperation, regional cooperation, national cooper− 232 −Resilient Cultural Heritage

ation, and international cooperation to protect cultural heritage.
I guess these are the major points that haveemerged out of the hour-and-a-half discussion.
Stefano De Caro:
Thank you very much. We could as the topic be
more and more and more hours here but we have to− 233 −

close this session. I want to thank you all for the attention. I want to thank the speakers for their interventions. And I want to thank the organizers of thisUnited Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk
Reduction for allowing the heritage sectors to participate and to raise the issue of heritage conservation into the practice of disaster risk reduction.
Thank you so much.